posted at 5:45 pm on June 15, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Observers said Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s cost-cutting bill to limit collective bargaining would prompt a Waterloo — and they weren’t kidding. But it’s not still not clear who’s who in the fight. Yesterday, the state Supreme Court upheld the controversial bill. Today, unions representing public workers in the state filed a lawsuit in federal court. From the wires:

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, claims the controversial measure is unconstitutional because it creates two classes of public workers in the state — those covered by the new rules and those exempt from them.

The law eliminates most collective bargaining rights for most Wisconsin teachers, road workers and other public employees and requires them to pay more for pensions and health coverage.

But certain public workers, including firefighters and other public safety workers, have been exempted from the new rules.

The suit argues that the differential treatment violates the constitutionally protected equal protection rights of the employees covered by the law.

It’s a completely different approach. Last time, collective bargaining fans made a procedural argument against the bill, saying the Republican majority in the state legislature passed it without granting out-of-state Democrats proper notice.

This argument might immediately sound more substantive, but it’s possibly more of a stretch. Wisconsin is not the first state to limit collective bargaining to some segments of public workers and not others, according to Heritage Foundation labor analyst James Sherk.

Sherk explains: In Indiana, for example, teachers enjoy collective bargaining privileges, but no other public workers do. Tennessee — before it abolished collective bargaining altogether — used to allow collective bargaining only for teachers. In Texas, police and firefighters may unionize, but no other government workers can.

Perhaps even more tellingly, labor law itself distinguishes among different types of workers. The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed union shops in all industries except construction, Sherk said.

It’s hard to believe union leaders expect this argument to ultimately succeed. That makes this seem more like a delay tactic than anything else. If incessant lawsuits simply prevent the controversial bill from taking effect, the recall elections will be that much closer …

Some courts and judges have bought into the argument that people doing nothing is “interstate commerce” and the State forcing people to buy something falls under “regulation”, so no decision would surprise me.

I’m more convinced than ever that the courts are 100% politicized and the legal arguments are nothing buy exercises in rationalization.

What’s the political make-up of that court? That’ll tell us how the “legal arguments” will be settled.

Equal protection claims fail if there is any rational basis at all for the distinction unless it is a suspect class (race, religion, etc.) Needless to day, government employees are not a suspect class. And the rational basis test could be restated as pretty much being any logical reason whatsoever.

My Goodness That Was Quick! Do these people ever take no for an answer? Where do they get all the money they need to continually file these suits? Couldn’t that money be better spent feeding the children?

The suit argues that the differential treatment violates the constitutionally protected equal protection rights of the employees covered by the law.

Get bent, unions. That equal protection thing is a thing of the past. Where was the protection for those being harrassed by the New Black Panthers at the voting establishments? Oooooooooooooooh. Riiiiiiiiiight. If you’re with Obama you’re protected. If you’re not…touch noogies.

Toss in the fundamental difference of opinion over what the ruling means in terms of the act’s current state of applicability (the Department of Justice believes that it is in effect as of now and that Democrat Secretary of State Doug La Follette must publish the post-publication notification now as the act was published on March 25, La Follette believes it isn’t in effect until June 29, the day after he feels like designating the date of publication), and it is a three-ring circuis

The only point of this lawsuit is to keep the story in the news, and try and keep the old hippy protesters of Madison, Wisconsin busy, and ginned up, until they start canvassing for the Democrats prior to the 2012 elections. Someone is going to have to take ACORNS place. It’s difficult to sustain the kind of on going protest the Unions want, to make it look like they are gaining steam. They actually they have suffered loss after loss, and I predict, the recall of state senators will be awash too.

How do they keep people in their 50s and 60s, out in the public square, from now till November 2012?

If a federal court fell for this BS then states would not be able to treat recruits for the police different then people applying for the trash man. Here in florida cops will get different pay depending on the county they live in. Haven’t seen their union pitch a fit.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, claims the controversial measure is unconstitutional because it creates two classes of public workers in the state — those covered by the new rules and those exempt from them.

Well, I guess you guys will be giving back those Obamacare waivers then. We wouldn’t want two classes of workers now would we.

Tina, I don’t think the Court addressed the merits of the bill. They were too busy dealing with a judicious reprimand of the Hon. Judge Sumi who overstepped her authority enjoining a bill before it became a law by publication.

Nullification! Whose business is it anyway? The State’s or the Federal Government’s? I can’t see where the Fed has any jurisdiction in this case. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has spoken. This is about State’s rights and a sacred compact.

That makes this seem more like a delay tactic than anything else. If incessant lawsuits simply prevent the controversial bill from taking effect…

Why should lawsuits or judges rulings block a law from taking effect? 0bowmaoCare has been ruled unconstitutional, and that hasn’t slowed down the 0Stalin administration from proceeding full speed ahead to implement the law.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, claims the controversial measure is unconstitutional because it creates two classes of public workers in the state — those covered by the new rules and those exempt from them.

You mean like Obamacare creates two classes of people–those covered by the new rules and those exempt from them?

This argument might immediately sound more substantive, but it’s possibly more of a stretch. Wisconsin is not the first state to limit collective bargaining to some segments of public workers and not others, according to Heritage Foundation labor analyst James Sherk.

If that’s the case, then they should just say no one can force you to be in a union :)

1. Equal protection is a joke. There is no such thing as equal protection any longer because of all the different ways we are treated by the feds everyday. The progressive income tax rates, affirmative action, hate crimes laws, whether or not you are gay, et al. There is a hierarchy of groups and each is treated differently which is decidedly unequal.

2. I heard on the Roger Hedgecock show last night that this case has been pretty much rendered moot by the thugs in the unions and local governments. He said that most of the local districts have completed renegotiated their collective bargaining agreements while these stalling tactics by Judge Sumi kept the law from being enacted.